Senate Bill 5094, which the Law & Justice Committee heard Jan. 16, would change Washington law on depictions of minors and expand the statute of limitations for some offenses. The measure would: remove the requirement that a fabricated depiction show an identifiable minor for purposes of criminal liability; increase the statute of limitations for dealing in, sending, bringing into the state, possessing, or viewing sexual depictions of minors from three to ten years; and expand the crime of sexual exploitation of a minor to cover situations in which a person knowingly causes an unconscious or unaware minor to be photographed or part of a live performance depicting sexually explicit conduct.

Prosecutors and Internet Crimes Against Children advocates testified in favor. Laura Harman of the King County Prosecutor's Office said the current three‑year limit can prevent prosecution because it can take years to access and analyze encrypted devices or to trace distributed media. She also asked the committee to close a loophole that has required the state to prove a child was aware of being recorded in prosecutions for producing exploitation material, a requirement that can shield perpetrators who drug or secretly record victims.

Sponsor remarks noted the bill responds to investigative realities: advances in encryption and the time required to break into seized devices mean cases can take longer to prepare for charging, supporting the extension to 10 years. The bill’s expansion of the exploitation offense to cover unconscious victims was offered to address documented circumstances in modern cases.

Defense groups and the Sentencing Guidelines Commission urged caution. Ramona Brandes (Washington Defender Association) and the commission raised constitutional questions and recommended that the Legislature align statutory language with constitutional limits; the commission emphasized concerns about extending criminal exposure and urged analysis first. Treatment experts and members of the Sexual Offender Policy Board recommended creating or using community‑based treatment alternatives for depiction‑only offenders who are low risk for hands‑on offending rather than extending incarceration periods.

The committee closed the public hearing after extensive testimony. Sponsors and supporters signaled willingness to work on narrowing language (for example, clarifying whether the statute of limitations extension should apply to all listed offenses or primarily to trafficking and dealing) and to consider distinctions between possession and distribution when setting charging deadlines.

Ending: No final committee action on Jan. 16; staff and stakeholders were asked to refine statutory language and consider recommendations from the Sentencing Guidelines Commission and offender‑policy experts.